It's great that people just aren't giving up on this. Find an action near you and raise your voice, because until we get money out of politics, we don't have a chance at good government:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s damaging Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling looms, thousands of people across the country will stage demonstrations, rallies, protests and other actions to magnify the urgent need to overturn the decision and ensure democracy is for people – not corporations. The actions highlight growing disgust with the court’s ruling and an increasing awareness of the corrupting influence corporations have over politics.

Activists working with Public Citizen are involved in more than 150 actions across the country, from Minnesota to Texas and California to North Carolina. Many will be “Occupying the Corporations” by demonstrating in front of a multinational corporation in their town, such as Bank of America or Chevron, to call out large corporations for usurping their democracy. In addition, Public Citizen will be holding rallies in California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont with state lawmakers and allied organizations to highlight the push for resolutions in those state legislatures to overturn Citizens United. The Supreme Court’s ruling, issued on Jan. 21, 2010, said that corporations can spend unlimited sums to influence elections.

The effect on that year’s midterm congressional elections was immediate, and we are once again seeing massive amounts of corporate money being funneled into the presidential primaries. “Citizens United subverts the essence of democracy, which means rule by the people,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “Overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision with a constitutional amendment is the first step in fixing our broken political system and opening the door to address the great challenges facing the country, from putting people back to work to averting catastrophic climate change.”

Public Citizen is working with more than 60 organizations committed to overturning the Supreme Court’s decision via a constitutional amendment. Under the United For the People banner, the organizations, representing millions of activists around the country, are working to harness the grassroots power of the vast majority of Americans who believe there is too much money in politics. As the second anniversary of Citizens United approaches, this expanding network of organizations is coordinating a series of actions from grassroots gatherings to rallies at courthouses and corporate headquarters across the nation.

A complete list of organizations and actions is available at www.United4ThePeople.org. Information about Public Citizen’s amendment campaign is available at www.DemocracyIsForPeople.org.

In addition to being the Party of No, the Florida GOP seems to be the Party of Cutting Off the Nose To Spite the Face. Florida Governor Charlie Crist proposed an amendment to the Florida Constitution banning near offshore drilling off the Florida Coast for all time.

In Florida, the will of the people seems to matter less than party pique at Charlie Crists' choice to run for Senator as an Independent after they endorsed teabagger Marco Rubio as their golden boy.

As the legislature prepares for a special session with the aim of debating a constitutional ban on offshore oil drilling, a new poll shows that Floridians oppose drilling within 10 miles of Florida’s coast, and that 71 percent want a chance to vote on a ban (though the wording of that question does not mention a constitutional referendum).

But the Florida GOP saw it as an opportunity to play political potsie and slap Crist instead, closing the special session called by Crist to address the question after 49 minutes without a vote.

In dramatic political theater, the Republican-led Florida House rejected Gov. Charlie Crist’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban oil drilling near Florida’s shores, calling it a “simple solution designed to produce sound bites, photo-ops and political attacks.”

A special session called by Crist lasted just 49 minutes in the House – from 12:02 p.m. to 12:51 p.m. – before legislators beat a path out of Tallahassee without any hearings or votes, despite objections from Democrats. It likely cost taxpayers around $40,000 to $50,000 for lawmakers to travel to the Capitol for the short-lived special session.

The vote to adjourn the session, without a vote on the drilling ban, broke down along party lines, 67-44.

Republicans' arguments seem to center around the fact that state law already prohibits offshore drilling. This is true. But as Californians discovered last year, state law can be changed when budgets are at risk of being blown out by a bad economy. Amazingly, approvals were considered for offshore exploration off the coast of Santa Barbara, the site of one of the worst oil spills in American history 40 years ago.

Was Crist's call political theater? Sure it was, but it also played for the majority of Floridians who rely on their beaches and tourist industries and who fear the possibility that thirst for oil and money will overwhelm their desire to preserve Florida's beauty and their livelihoods.

At least there's a clear record now for Floridians to consider.

(h/t Beach Peanuts)

Supreme Court won't annul gay-marriage okay in Mass.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation’s only law sanctioning such unions.

Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment...read on

Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. “Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury,” she said.

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told justices that voters can overrule the Supreme Court by adopting a constitutional amendment.

The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.

CBS, NBC Refuse To Air Church's TV Ad World Faith Network

United Church of Christ ad highlighting Jesus' extravagant welcome called
'too controversial'

CLEVELAND -- The CBS and NBC television networks are refusing to run a 30-second television ad from the United Church of Christ because its all-inclusive welcome has been deemed "too controversial."
The ad, part of the denomination's new, broad identity campaign set to begin airing nationwide on Dec. 1, states that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ (UCC) seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation.
According to a written explanation from CBS, the United Church of Christ is being denied network access because its ad implies acceptance of gay and lesbian couples -- among other minority constituencies -- and is, therefore, too "controversial."
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

Similarly, a rejection by NBC declared the spot "too controversial."

"It's ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all the major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial," says the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president. "What's going on here?"

Negotiations between network officials and the church's representatives broke down today (Nov. 30), the day before the ad campaign begins airing nationwide on a combination of broadcast and cable networks. The ad has been accepted and will air on a number of networks, including ABC Family, AMC, BET, Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, History, Nick@Nite, TBS, TNT, Travel and TV Land, among others. More

Propose Constitutional Amendment Against "Thanksgiving Gay Parades"

A gay Spongebob eyes a new candidate for unnatural marriage.

"Only in New York," said Senator Rick Santorum, who alleged that, since the addition of Spongebob to the parade, he had seen the Sesemae Street Grover balloon in unnaturally close proximity to Scooby-Doo's tail.

The allegation that Spongebob Squarepants, a cartoon character who appears on the Nickelodeon TV Network, is homosexual, caused a great deal of controversy among fans. "Spongebob is not gay," said Anita Physic, a viewer from Oklahoma. "He's just a kid, really."

Republicans scoffed at the assertion. "Oh, please," said Santorum. "It's obvious. He lives in a pineapple under the sea."

The "Arnold Schwarznegger for President" push is on with this commercial!

Video

The ad is called "Amend for Arnold," which pushes for a constitutional amendment so foreign born citizens can run for president!

Oops:

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

Obviously, Abbott and supporters are saying that the intention is clear and that Radnofsky is just being "silly." Personally, I think this is great opportunity to challenge the law on behalf of the gay partnerships being discriminated against. If the state of Texas does not want recognize any kind of legal standing between same sex couples to the point that they declare they will not recognize the legal standing of anything like marriage, let them experience the wrath of straight couples who will find insurance companies pouncing on this wording to deny benefits.

On November 3rd, there will be a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in Ohio. This is no ordinary ballot initiative. Its very existence and marketing has been bought and paid for --to the tune of millions--by national and international agri-business corporations, such as Pioneer Hi-Bred International (owned by DuPont, a "developer and supplier of advanced plant genetics"--healthy!--and grantee of 100K to the effort),the National Pork Producers Council (113K), and the United Egg Producers (200K!).

(Join our Facebook Group and help us stop this travesty!)

Now why, you ask, would these Big Agra players get involved in a state issue, and to support a campaign that is for touchy feely things like "food safety" and "local control?" I'm not sure, but it might be that this corruption of Ohio's Constitution will provide "food safety" much like George W. Bush provided "healthy forests," "clear skies" and a "mission accomplished." In other words--and I know this will shock you--they're lying. And they're lying with millions of dollars they've acquired, by being, like their "products," pigs at a trough.

So what is Issue 2, what will it do, and why should you care about it if you're not a resident of the Buckeye State? It's simple: Issue 2 was put on the ballot overnight by state legislators bought off by Big Agri-Business and their mouthpiece here, the Ohio Farm Bureau. Why? So that they can corrupt Ohio's Constitution to give the Governor the power to appoint a board of unaccountable agri-business cronies to make decisions in smoke-filled rooms about all farming practices in Ohio.

I know what you're thinking. Unaccountable, corporate-influenced governing has worked out so well with TARP money and preemptive war, we might as well try it with farm policy.

With Issue 2's passage, those only interested in their bottom line can (and you can bet will) stuff millions more animals into smaller and smaller crates together, increasing the likelhood of H1N1 and E. Coli outbreaks and mutations and their capacity for animal cruelty. They can ignore the waste caused by big factory farms that contaminates the water we drink. They can allow workers to be exploited and placed in situations that endanger their health, while putting family farms--held for generations--out of business.

And why should you care if this passes in Ohio? For all the reasons above, but also...because you're next. This amendment was a reaction to successful efforts to rein in their greedy, dangerous and abusive practices in California (Prop 2), Arizona and Florida, among others. If they can use the camouflage of bought off Democratic and Republican Establishments, millions of dollars in lies, and an off-year low-turnout election to enshrine their corporate malpractice into state constitutions, they can fly under the radar while endangering our health, undermining the people's right to petition (another amendment would be needed to overturn it if passed, as the new board's decisions would supersede ballot initiatives, legislative decisions and opinions by the State Department of Agriculture) and spiking their profits.

How can you help? Well, we only have 10% of their budget. But we have the grassroots energy. We have you.

So please join our Facebook group. Tweet this. Blog it. Call and email everyone you know in Ohio. And be prepared when this garbage dressed up as a gift inevitably makes its way to your state.

(Watch this video for more on this - the 1st minute and then from 5:22 on)

Full Disclosure: I am proud to be a consultant in the effort to beat back Issue 2 in Ohio

Digby nails it. These people should be ashamed of themselves, but they'll send out emails and the big bucks will be coming in against the "gays":

Since when has the GOP been afraid to be called homophobic or gay bashers? They positively revel in it. In fact, just a couple of months ago 202 Republican House members voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (It failed to get the required 2/3rds for passage.) Somehow, I don't think the Republicans are quaking in their boots at being called anti-gay.

And if they were so afraid of being called anti-gay that they allowed a 52 year old congressman to stalk 16 year old boys on the internet, then they are much too timorous to be running the government. These guys are charged with making laws and running wars, for gawd's sake....read on

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration went to a vote in the Senate Tuesday, apparently heading for an outcome just short of the two-thirds needed to send it on to the states for ratification...read on"